I wasn't really going to enter this fray but I can't help it. I'm not a
contester and probably shouldn't even be posting here. I just like RTTY. ?I
have been a ham for almost 45 years but clearly still have a lot to learn.
It's been my observation that there are few, if any, contesters that want a
level playing field. Who would? Everything we buy, everything we do is in hopes
of "gaining an edge" - to un-level the playing field, so to speak. Most would
agree that?by it's very nature, adding a second rig is an advantage - at least
when one becomes competent in the use of 2 rigs in a contest environment.
In college football, teams compete generally within their own divisions -
divisions that were established in attempt to "level the playing field" (pardon
the pun) i.e. schools with similar financial resources and populations. That
too is not a perfect system.
I hate to beat the sports analogy to death, but take a look a pro baseball,
specifically the NY Yankees. Old George Steinbrenner has, for years, put
together arguablly the finest teams that money could buy. Teams from the
smaller markets are significantly disadvantaged when compared to the fiscal
resources available to the Yankees. No, the Yankees don't always win the
pennant - but often they do. It usually makes for some interesting baseball.
Coincidentally, whenever there is talk about revenue sharing or any other such
attempt to make things more "fair" it is Steinbrenner that screams and whines
the loudest. It is his "God-given " right to spend millions of dollars more?to
crush the competition, no matter how disadvantaged they may be.?Oh yeah, not
unlike contesting, the Yankees are roundly loved or hated!
It's not for me to say what's?right or wrong, or what ought to be or ought not
be - as I said, I don't contest and don't have a dog in this race. I do have a
question, though. If it's no big deal, if it really isn't that big an
advantage, if if doesn't really matter, etc., then why are the SO2R types so
vocal, emotional and vehemently opposed to competing in their own seperate
class? I don't get it. It kind of reminds me of pistol shooters in one age
bracket wanting to be included in the old timers age bracket and the bragging
that they beat the old timers and won! Or perhaps being a marathon runner and
bragging because you beat the seniors and guys in wheel chairs. Actually, a lot
of contesting seems that way to me, but that's the beauty of ham radio, there's
something for everyone and if you don't like one aspect of it, you can always
change to left-handed straight-key?CW moonbounce.
Vy 73 to all - no matter how many radios you operate,
Bill KD5XN
-----Original Message-----
From: rtty-request@contesting.com
To: rtty@contesting.com
Sent: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 4:36 pm
Subject: RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 23
Send RTTY mailing list submissions to
rtty@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rtty-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
rtty-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RTTY digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Bill Turner)
2. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (John Fleming)
3. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
4. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
5. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Bill Turner)
6. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Kok Chen)
7. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Kok Chen)
8. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Joe Subich, W4TV)
9. Re: CQ-Contest SO2R (Shelby Summerville)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:04:28 -0700
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: rtty@contesting.com
Message-ID: <if0oe39igd4i935j9209d3imefovtbd17c@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:38:33 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
<w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
>This jihad against SO2R is nothing more than I don't like it
>so I don't want it in MY neighborhood.
------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
You could not be more wrong if you tried. You just don't get it. For
the ten billionth and two time, nobody is against SO2R. We just want
it in its own category.
Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:34:26 -0400
From: "John Fleming" <john@wa9als.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <005201c7f7b6$48c9c600$0201a8c0@wa9als>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
> To me, it's like high power vs low power: You can choose either one,
> have a good time and compete against those similarly equipped. IMO,
> SO2R gives a similar advantage and therefore should be classed
> similarly.
>
> Bill W6WRT
Everyone seems to avoid directly answering the question, "Then what about
antennas etc?" Any knowledgeable ham would have to admit that antennas are
more important than power, yet we have a power category and not an antenna
category. (That's probably because rules are more easily made for power
than for antennas.)
Every time someone figures out an honest way to gain an advantage, you just
can't strap them into their own category. If you could do that, there would
be no more "sport of contesting".
If you don't like the rules, then complain to the contest sponsors. The
sour grapes here only serves to drive out potential new contesters, and
heaven help us, new/younger people who join the reflector. The real sport
should be RTTY operating - not who can argue/complain the best.
73 - John, WA9ALS
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat@copper.net>
Cc: 'RTTY Reflector' <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c7f7b8$ec29bd30$0400000a@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Please, Joe! For the ten billionth time, nobody wants you to
> "eschew" any of your skills. We just want them to be in their
> appropriate category.
Bill - you just don't "get it."
This isn't an "appropriate category" issue - separate but equal
was struck down more than 50 years ago. For both the SO1R and
SO2R operator, if they are playing by the rules, all operating
is performed by a single operator and only one signal (transmitter)
is on the air at any time. It doesn't make a bit of difference
how many receivers the operator can listen to, how many transmitters
he has in his shack, or how many antennas he has outside. You are
making an argument based on the "value" or investment in a station.
If you are going to make SO2R a separate category you are
"eschewing" a particular skill. I guarantee it is entirely
possible - as shown by the YUs at WRTC - to do "SO2R" with
one transmitter and a separate receiver. It may well be
possible to do SO2R with a single dual-receiver transceiver
if some manufacturer puts their mind to it and does a little
creative packaging.
Again, operators have been using multiple "stations" to listen
for openings on other bands and quickly changing bands for
more than 40 years. It has never been, nor should it ever be
a reason to banish those operators to a separate category any
more than those who have monoband antennas and multiple towers
should be banished to a separate category.
SO2R is to the multiple stations of the 60s and early 70s
as digital signal processing (MMTTY, MixW, RTTYrite, etc.)
is to the vacuum tube TU and the model 15. Lead, follow or
get out of the way.
Calls for a separate SO2R class are nothing more than "I don't
want 'their kind' in 'my' class." It is an emotional argument.
There is no more valid, rational, justification for a separate
entry class for SO2R than there would be justification for a
separate entry class for anyone with an Icom transceiver or for
a separate entry class for anyone who has spent more than $1000
to build his station.
If you want to "level the playing field" do it by applying
a 10 minute rule to ALL single operator classes - see how
popular that is! If you want to "level the playing field"
put any operator with an antenna more than 50 feet high
and which contains elements totaling more than 1/2 wave in
a separate entry class.
Any argument for separate entry classes based on operating
style (technique) is simply a case of class warfare - the
have nots vs. the haves and stinks of 1960's America or
1930's Germany.
Now, grow up and get over yourself.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Turner [mailto:dezrat@copper.net]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Cc: 'Jay Kloss'; 'RTTY Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:17:52 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
>
> >Why
> >should any operator be required to eschew one set of tools -
> >particularly what you call a "skill" (that may have taken many
> >years to perfect) - in order to participate in the largest and
> >most competitive classification (single-operator)?
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> Please, Joe! For the ten billionth time, nobody wants you to "eschew"
> any of your skills. We just want them to be in their appropriate
> category.
>
> Running an amp is a skill too. Amplifier owners are not "eschewed",
> they are simply placed in their appropriate category. Same with
> Multi/Multi and any other category which gives a significant
> advantage. Nobody wants you to give up your skills... just compete
> against other like-minded folks.
>
> End of post # ten billion and one. :-)
>
> Bill W6WRT
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat@copper.net>, <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <003001c7f7b8$ec99e420$0400000a@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> You could not be more wrong if you tried. You just don't get it. For
> the ten billionth and two time, nobody is against SO2R. We just want
> it in its own category.
Sure, Bill. You might as well say, "I don't have anything against
blacks or Jews, I just don't want THEM in MY neighborhood."
As Mike pointed out, this is the unlimited SO category - the premiere
category of any contest. Pushing two radio operators out of that
category because of their operating technique is like saying left-
handed operators need to be in a separate category because many of
them can send with their right hand and write with their left hand.
when you start discriminating based entirely on OPERATING TECHNIQUE
you have crossed the line.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:04 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:38:33 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
>
> >This jihad against SO2R is nothing more than I don't like it
> >so I don't want it in MY neighborhood.
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> You could not be more wrong if you tried. You just don't get it. For
> the ten billionth and two time, nobody is against SO2R. We just want
> it in its own category.
>
> Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:54:59 -0700
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <og3oe31al0k2slcl94pij8rg6mnn1nnogj@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:34:26 -0400, "John Fleming" <john@wa9als.com>
wrote:
>If you don't like the rules, then complain to the contest sponsors.
------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
That's what we are doing. Contest sponsors read these posts.
Bill W6WRT
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:18:30 -0700
From: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <C3DFB316-7FC3-4537-A154-A91ECF0D178F@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On Sep 15, 2007, at 9/15 9:34 AM, John Fleming wrote:
> Everyone seems to avoid directly answering the question, "Then what
> about
> antennas etc?" Any knowledgeable ham would have to admit that
> antennas are
> more important than power, yet we have a power category and not an
> antenna
> category.
I think John has hit the nail on the head.
Even though it is seldom that people have the 10 dB gain over an
average antenna as they do running an amplifier, antennas help not
just in the transmit direction but also in the receive direction --
what an amplifier cannot buy you. With RTTY, an extra 2 dB of
directivity could mean the difference of pulling out an exchange and
not pulling out an exchange.
> (That's probably because rules are more easily made for power
> than for antennas.)
Using EIRP instead of output power would be a good start. It would
incorporate both power and antenna gain into a single rule. However
it will still not account for take off angles between high and low
antennas, which is arguably more important than just a raw "gain"
number when DX is concerned.
Anyhow, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I seldom even log the
stations that I work in a contest anymore. I just occasionally work
people for fun when I tune across a contest.
73
Chen, W7AY
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:25:58 -0700
From: Kok Chen <chen@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: RTTY Reflector <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <10A8233E-6C5A-45AE-B557-17D0A38D2C96@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Since people are so opposed to an SO2R category, perhaps what should
be created instead is an SO1R category, eh? Let the SO2R guys
operate in the so called Unlimited SO category.
A rose by any name... :-) :-)
73
Chen, W7AY
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:24:55 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "'Bill Turner'" <dezrat@copper.net>, <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <003301c7f7bd$56140260$0400000a@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> AA5AU has also commented that with SO2R, his score improved about 40%
> above his SO1R score.
And this proves what? If an operator improves his CW technique by
learning to copy at 30 WPM instead of 8 WPM, his score will go up
by 40% (or more).
You are trying to create separate entry classes based on nothing more
than operating technique (call it skill). That's not the way it has
ever been done in radio sport.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 11:18 AM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
>
>
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:47:12 -0400, "Joe Subich, W4TV"
> <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
>
> > AA5AU has commented more than once
> >that since he could not possibly have a big antenna farm, he adopted
> >SO2R to allow him to compete against the guys with big antennas
> >(he does might well
>
> ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------
>
> AA5AU has also commented that with SO2R, his score improved about 40%
> above his SO1R score. That is a comparable advantage to HP vs LP, and
> like HP vs LP, deserves its own category.
>
> The playing field can not be made perfectly level, but we should try
> any reasonable means to make it so. NOT doing so reduces competition
> and ultimately will cause contesters to give it up and go somewhere
> else to have fun.
>
> Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:35:31 -0400
From: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQ-Contest SO2R
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <001801c7f7e0$576832d0$6401a8c0@acer6e395d0925>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Kok Chen wrote: "Since people are so opposed to an SO2R category, perhaps
what should
be created instead is an SO1R category, eh?"
Again, and again...you have it wrong!!!!! I don't know of anyone that is
"opposed" to SO2R, and they already have their own category...SO! The
creation of a SO1R category, has been proposed, from the start!
C'Ya, Shelby - K4WW
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
End of RTTY Digest, Vol 57, Issue 23
************************************
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|